The blockade of Yemen and lack of accountability

[Nomad4Ever]

I can agree we need to stop policing situations where we are not being attacked.

Well, I don't agree with that. I support intervening to stop genocides for example.

 

[Simpletruther]

Well, I don't agree with that. I support intervening to stop genocides for example.

Do we need to attack china over their muslim camps?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Do we need to attack china over their muslim camps?

Let's not be stupid here. We can do a basic cost/benefit analysis for our actions. Obviously going to war with China would kill way more people than we would save from their camps. But we did diplomatically attack China over them actually.

 

[Simpletruther]

Let's not be stupid here.

If you want to get into the mud. I am ready. But i prefer not.

We can do a basic cost/benefit analysis for our actions. Obviously going to war with China would kill way more people than we would save from their camps. But we did diplomatically attack China over them actually.

Our soldiers are worth so much more to me than strangers i will not do the math.

So if we loose 500 soldiers to save a 1000 peasants. Are you in?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

If you want to get into the mud. I am ready. But i prefer not.

I'm not sure what you mean, unless you interpreted "lets not be stupid here" as an ad hom. I did not intend it as such and was trying to say that there is no reason to bring up ridiculous ideas we both know are stupid.

Our soldiers are worth so much more to me than strangers i will not do the math.

So if we loose 500 soldiers to save a 1000 peasants. Are you in?

Where has that ever been the ratio over the last 20 years? When we bombed Serbia to stop their genocide I don't think there were ANY US losses. We only lost 71 soldiers in our entire years long campaign against ISIS. In a country like Rwanda it seems like if we had intervened in their genocide our losses probably would have been in the single digits.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Well, I don't agree with that. I support intervening to stop genocides for example.

Rwanda?

Somalia? That one worked out well.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Rwanda?

We didn't intervene in Rwanda. We just let it happen.

Somalia? That one worked out well.

All things considered yeah, we probably saved a lot of lives.

 

[Simpletruther]

I'm not sure what you mean, unless you interpreted "lets not be stupid here" as an ad hom. I did not intend it as such and was trying to say that there is no reason to bring up ridiculous ideas we both know are stupid.

But it obviously had a purpose. Its an analogy

Analogies can be exaggerated.

Come on man, Lets not be stupid.

.......
Most people have an emotional reaction and take that comment as ad hom.
I am pretty logical, but i am not Mr Spock. I have emotions.

Where has that ever been the ratio over the last 20 years? When we bombed Serbia to stop their genocide I don't think there were ANY US losses. We only lost 71 soldiers in our entire years long campaign against ISIS. In a country like Rwanda it seems like if we had intervened in their genocide our losses probably would have been in the single digits.

Just seeing where our soldiers lie in your calculus.

Give me a rough acceptable ratio of our soldiers death to save strangers (while not knowing if we are just postponing another genocide) or creating another one by energizing some reactionaries)

 

[Nomad4Ever]

But it obviously had a purpose. Its an analogy

Analogies can be exagerated.

Lets not be stupid.

.......
Most people have an emotional reaction and take that comment as ad hom.
I am pretty logical, but i am not Mr Spock. I have emotions.

I apologize then. I didn't intend it as an insult.

Just seeing where our soldiers lie in your calculus.

Give me a rough acceptable ratio.

Depends how bad what they are stopping is. We lost a LOT of soldiers in WWII relative to enemies killed but I think us joining WWII was a moral necessity. I don't think there is a single "ratio". But one would hope if we are stopping a genocide in some third world country our losses would be in the 1:100-1,000 range.

 

[Simpletruther]

I apologize then. I didn't intend it as an insult.

Ok.

Depends how bad what they are stopping is. We lost a LOT of soldiers in WWII relative to enemies killed but I think us joining WWII was a moral necessity. I don't think there is a single "ratio". But one would hope if we are stopping a genocide in some third world country our losses would be in the 1:100-1,000 range.

WW11 i view as existential.

Our bombing to stop genocides might very well empower a much more evil opposition.

As a general rule i would i would avoid situations we cant calculate.